nach oben

Journal of Business and Psychology

Erschienen in:

28.06.2017 | Original Paper

Safety Climate Measurement: an Empirical Test of Context-Specific vs. General Assessments

verfasst von: Nathanael L. Keiser, Stephanie C. Payne

Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology | Ausgabe 4/2018

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

Safety climate researchers develop and use both general and industry-specific safety climate measures. Theories about language comprehension suggest that context facilitates meaning; however, the relative value of context-specific safety climate measures in the prediction of safety outcomes is an empirical question that has not been rigorously tested. The purpose of the present study was to provide a rigorous comparison of context-specific vs. general safety climate measures.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Seven hundred forty-six university laboratory personnel from five different kinds of research labs (i.e., animal biological, biological, chemical, human subjects/computer, or mechanical/electrical) completed contextualized safety climate measures, a general safety climate measure, and measures of other safety-related constructs.

Findings

Measurement equivalence analyses indicated that the general safety climate measure was not equivalent across the five lab types. Hypothesis testing revealed that contextualized information was most helpful when included in safety climate measures for less, rather than more, safety-salient contexts, but overall, there was relatively little difference in the validities for general and context-specific measures.

Implications

Results suggest that context has a small influence on how individuals respond to safety climate measures and provide guidance for researchers/practitioners when deciding between using industry-specific or general safety climate measures. It appears most beneficial to use industry-specific measures when examining safety climate in a less-safety-salient context.

Originality/Value

This study offers one of the first empirical tests of a contextualized safety climate measure involving a rigorous, unconfounded comparison of five context-specific safety climate measures with a general measure.

Vorheriger Artikel A Finer Grained Approach to Psychological Capital and Work Performance

Nächster Artikel Positive Leader Behaviors and Workplace Incivility: the Mediating Role of Perceived Norms for Respect

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

An open records request was submitted to obtain a list of all university personnel and students who completed laboratory safety training and a list of principal investigators. The lists obtained were outdated and contained numerous duplicates. Further, student records are protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Nevertheless, there were 3738 unique people on these lists and an additional recruitment e-mail was sent directly to these individuals to ensure that all laboratory personnel had an opportunity to participate. E-mails to 387 of the 3738 individuals were returned as undeliverable, and 12 people replied and indicated that they were not laboratory personnel.

A multivariate ANOVA indicated that order of the general and context-specific measures did not have a significant effect on the contextualized safety climate scores nor the general safety climate scores, F(1, 642) = .10, p = .75, η ² < .001.

Association of American Colleges and Universities (2010). Critical thinking VALUE rubric. Retrieved from https://aacu.org/.

Belson, W. A. (1981). The design and understanding of survey questions. Aldershot, England: Gower.

Beus, J. M., Payne, S. C., & Arthur, W. Jr (2011). The initial validation of a universal measure of safety climate. Paper presented at the 26th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.

Beus, J. M., Payne, S. C., Bergman, M. E., & Arthur Jr., W. (2010). Safety climate and injuries: An examination of theoretical and empirical relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 713–727. doi:10.1037/a0019164.

Bing, M. N., Whanger, J. C., Davison, H. K., & Van Hook, J. B. (2004). Incremental validity of the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores: A replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 150–157. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.150.CrossRefPubMed

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.CrossRef

Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1103–1127. doi:10.1037/a0016172.CrossRefPubMed

Day, B. T. (1999). Using stages of change to examine fear, threat, efficacy, and safety climate perceptions in health care workers who routinely handle needles and sharps. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University.

DeRoos, R. L. (1977). Environmental health and safety in the academic setting. American Journal of Public Health, 67, 851–854. doi:10.2105/AJPH.67.9.851.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Furr, A. K. (2000). CRC handbook of laboratory safety. Boca Raton: CRC press.CrossRef

Gaba, D. M., Singer, S. J., Sinaiko, A. D., Bowen, J. D., & Ciavarelli, A. P. (2003). Differences in safety climate between hospital personnel and naval aviators. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 45, 173–185. doi:10.1518/hfes.45.2.175.27238.CrossRef

Gershon, R. R., Vlahov, D., Felknor, S. A., Vesley, D., Johnson, P. C., Delcios, G. L., & Murphy, L. R. (1995). Compliance with universal precautions among health care workers at three regional hospitals. American Journal of Infection Control, 23, 225–236. doi:10.1016/0196-6553(95)90067-5.CrossRefPubMed

Griffin, M. A., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety climate to safety performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 347–358. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.5.3.347.CrossRefPubMed

Harper, L., & Watt, F. (2012). Laboratory safety culture survey. Retrieved from http://www.bioraft.com.

Hoerger, M. (2013). Z_H: An updated version of Steiger’s Z and web-based calculator for testing the statistical significance of the difference between dependent correlations. Retrieved from http://www.psychmike.com/dependent_correlations.php.

Hofmann, D. A., & Mark, B. (2006). An investigation of the relationship between safety climate and medication errors as well as other nurse and patient outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 59, 847–869.CrossRef

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRef

Huang, Y. H., Zohar, D., Robertson, M. M., Garabet, A., Lee, J., & Murphy, L. A. (2013). Development and validation of safety climate scales for lone workers using truck drivers as exemplar. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 17, 5–19. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2012.08.011.CrossRef

Hunt, R. R., & Ellis, H. C. (2004). Fundamentals of cognitive psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hunthausen, J. M., Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., & Hammer, L. B. (2003). A field study of frame-of-reference effects on personality test validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 545–551. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.545.CrossRefPubMed

Jermier, J. M., Gaines, J., & McIntosh, N. J. (1989). Reactions to physically dangerous work: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 15–33.CrossRef

Jex, S. M., Swanson, N., & Grubb, P. (2013). Healthy workplaces. In N. Schmitt, S. Highhouse, & I. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 615–642). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc..

Johnson, J. A. (2014). Measuring thirty facets of the five factor model with a 120-item public domain inventory: Development of the IPIP-NEO-120. Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 78–89. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2014.05.003.CrossRef

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York City: The Guilford Press.

Kozlowski, S. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lewin, K. (1951). Formalization and progress in psychology. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.

Lievens, F., De Corte, W., & Schollaert, E. (2008). A closer look at the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores and validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 268–279. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.268.CrossRefPubMed

Luria, G. (2008). Climate strength—how leaders form consensus. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 42–53. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.004.CrossRef

MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676.CrossRefPubMed

Michigan State University (2014). Biological safety manual. Retrieved from http://www.orcbs.msu.edu/.

Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O (1998–2012). Mplus User’s Guide (7th edition). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

National Research Council. (2014). Safe science: Promoting a culture of safety in academic chemical research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Safety climate and safety at work. In J. Barling, M. R. Frone, J. Barling, & M. R. Frone (Eds.), The psychology of workplace safety (pp. 15–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRef

Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level: HR practices and organizational effectiveness. In K. J. Klein & S. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 211–266). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Muhammad, R. S. (2013). Organizational culture and climate. In N. W. Schmitt, S. Highhouse, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 643–676). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc..

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.CrossRefPubMed

Princeton University (2014). Laboratory safety manual. Retrieved from http://web.princeton.edu/sites/ehs/labsafetymanual/.

Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. § 46 (2009).

Schmit, M. J., Ryan, A. M., Stierwalt, S. L., & Powell, A. B. (1995). Frame-of-reference effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 607–620. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.5.607.CrossRef

Shaffer, J. A., & Postlethwaite, B. E. (2012). A matter of context: A meta-analytic investigation of the relative validity of contextualized and noncontextualized personality measures. Personnel Psychology, 65, 445–493. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01250.x.CrossRef

Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.87.2.245.CrossRef

Texas A&M University (2009). Laboratory safety manual. Retrieved from https://ehsd.tamu.edu/Pages/LabSafety.aspx.

Texas A&M University. (2012). EHS laboratory safety inspection checklist. Retrieved from https://ehsd.tamu.edu/Pages/LabSafety.aspx.

Texas Tech University (n.d.). Laboratory safety manual. Retrieved from http://www.depts.ttu.edu/ece/.

The Ohio State University (2014). Institution laboratory biosafety manual. Retrieved from http://ehs.osu.edu/manuals.aspx.

Tourangeau, R. (1984). Cognitive science and survey methods. In T. Jabine, M. Straf, J. Tanur, & R. Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of survey design: Building a bridge between disciplines (pp. 73–100). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Tourangeau, R., & Rasinski, K. A. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 299–314. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.299.CrossRef

Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

University of Texas at Austin (2013). Laboratory safety manual. Retrieved from http://www.utexas.edu/safety/ehs/.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015a). Census of fatal occupational injuries. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.toc.htm .

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015b). Nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses involving days away from work. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/osh2.pdf .

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70. doi:10.1177/109442810031002.CrossRef

Varonen, U., & Mattila, M. (2000). The safety climate and its relationship to safety practices, safety of the work environment, and occupational accidents in eight wood-processing companies. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 32, 761–769. doi:10.1016/S0001-4575(99)00129-3.CrossRef

West Virginia University (2012). Department of physics: Laboratory safety plan. Retrieved from http://physics.wvu.edu/.

Wills, A. R., Watson, B., & Biggs, H. C. (2006). Comparing safety climate factors as predictors of work-related driving behavior. Journal of Safety Research, 37, 375–383. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2006.05.008.CrossRefPubMed

Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 96–102. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.65.1.96.CrossRefPubMed

Zohar, D. (2003). Safety climate: Conceptual and measurement issues. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 123–142). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRef

Zohar, D. (2010). Thirty years of safety climate research: Reflections and future directions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42, 1517–1522. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.12.019.CrossRef

Titel: Safety Climate Measurement: an Empirical Test of Context-Specific vs. General Assessments
verfasst von: Nathanael L. Keiser
Stephanie C. Payne
Publikationsdatum: 28.06.2017
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology / Ausgabe 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0889-3268
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-353X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9504-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Design/Methodology/Approach

Findings

Implications

Originality/Value

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2018

Identifying ICT-Related Affective Events Across Life Domains and Examining their Unique Relationships with Employee Recovery

The Moderating Roles of Perceived Task Interdependence and Team Size in Transformational Leadership’s Relation to Team Identification: A Dimensional Analysis

A Review of Best Practice Recommendations for Text Analysis in R (and a User-Friendly App)

A Finer Grained Approach to Psychological Capital and Work Performance

Meaningful Work and Affective Commitment: A Moderated Mediation Model of Positive Work Reflection and Work Centrality

Positive Leader Behaviors and Workplace Incivility: the Mediating Role of Perceived Norms for Respect

Premium Partner